Contrast and verb phrase ellipsis: The case of tautologous conditionals

Abstract This paper argues that verb phrase ellipsis requires contrast. The central observation is ungrammatical in tautologous conditionals; e.g., * If John wins, then he does . Ellipsis correctly ruled out by a focus-based theory of (Rooth 1992a,b), but one crucially imports focus’s requirement for contrast: an elliptical constituent must have antecedent not merely alternative to it, ‘proper’ alternative. An explanation terms contrast failure proves superior explanations triviality and matching form. Showing as much catalogues what counts ellipsis, encompassing negation, questions, intensionality. Subjecting direct conflict with the traditional analysis MaxElide effects (Takahashi Fox 2005), favouring (e.g., Jacobson 2019a,b), perhaps itself (Griffiths 2019). Overall, this establishes has explanatory power licensing.